[Carfreeliving] Scoping for the EIR on UC Extension

[Jason Henderson]

Josh,

Thanks for that. I suspected that there might be disadvantages in asking 
for reduced parking at the EIR stage. I need to digest what you have 
written here.
On the other hand, it does seem important for the longer term to get a 
paper trail started asking for reduced parking so the BoS has ammo. 
Delicate balance.
-jh
Joshua Switzky wrote:

>
>
>you can ask for it, but to be honest, I don't think it really matters how
>much parking is in the EIR. As we all know, environmental review standards
>used by SF are somewhat archaic -- there is no connection between parking
>provided and traffic generation or between parking provided and auto
>ownership, or anything else we all experience empirically and "know"
>intuitively. However, while parking is briefly discussed in EIRs, almost
>every EIR has the disclaimer that in general, parking shortfalls (or
>"deficits") in transit rich areas are social impacts, not permanent
>environmental ones, and that peope will often switch modes, etc. Maybe it
>can't hurt to ask for the EIR to discuss a range of parking scenarios, but
>what's in the EIR for parking isn't likely to restrict the ultimate outcome
>one way or the other. Another important thing to note is that EIR do to
>things in respect to parking, they state the Planning Code required parking
>and compare it to the proposal, and state the calculated "demand" for
>parking and compare it to the proposal. Believe it or not, the Planning
>Code requirement of 1:1 is a lower amount than the city's formulas for
>calculating residential parking would estimate, which results in a factor
>equivalent to something like 1.1 or 1.2 cars per unit. So everytime this
>shows that even if they provide 1:1 that there is a parking "deficit."
>Advocating for the EIR to examine a lower parking scenario would only show
>a larger "deficit" which will be fodder for the parking fanatics. Without
>changing the standards of analysis by which we measure parking and traffic
>in EIRs in SF, I think it's somewhat pointless and possibly
>counterproductive to advocate for less parking to be included in EIRs. my
>two cents.
>-j
>
>
>
>                                                                                                                                         
>                      Jason Henderson                                                                                                    
>                      <jhenders at sbcglobal.net>          To:       "'Carfreeliving'" <carfreeliving at livablecity.org>                      
>                      Sent by:                          cc:                                                                              
>                      Carfreeliving-bounces at liva        Subject:  [Carfreeliving] Scoping for the EIR on UC Extension                    
>                      blecity.org                                                                                                        
>                                                                                                                                         
>                                                                                                                                         
>                      06/17/2005 04:32 PM                                                                                                
>                      Please respond to jhenders                                                                                         
>                                                                                                                                         
>
>
>
>
>Greetings fellow carfree travellers. I received a notice today for the
>anticipated scoping meeting for the EIR on the UC Extension project
>(Laguna-Herman-Haight-Buchanan). As you may recall, this is a proposal
>for 450 housing units and 314 parking spaces on 5.8 acres. Big  urban
>infill potential in transit rich, walkable, bikeable area.  Oral
>comments will be allowed here, and written comments can be submitted.
>Meeting is June 29th, 6pm, LGBT Center.
>
>Would it behoove us to ask that the EIR include consideration of an
>alternative with no parking, and an alternative with 0.3:1 parking? Has
>this ever been requested at this stage of the EIR process? Anyone out
>there with more experience on these scoping meetings? Theoretically we
>have an opportunity to shape the breadth and depth of the EIR, correct?
>Creating a paper trail advocating carfree development does seem like a
>good idea. Would Walk SF, TLC, and SF Bike be interested in drafting
>letters asking for carfree or carlite alternatives to be considered?  On
>the other hand, is the CEQA process (with LOS dictating) so rigged that
>for tactical reasons advocating for carfree at the EIR stage is not
>advised at this stage? Any thoughts?
>
>-jh
>
>Jason Henderson
>San Francisco CA
>(415)-255-8136
>jhenders at sbcglobal.net
>
>(See attached file: jhenders.vcf)
>_______________________________________________
>Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list
>to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF
>To unsubscribe:
>mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe
>or, for all options, go to:
>http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org
>

-- 
Jason Henderson 
San Francisco CA 
(415)-255-8136
jhenders at sbcglobal.net 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jhenders.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 218 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/carfreeliving_livablecity.org/attachments/20050617/ce54b1d1/jhenders.vcf